MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418653403 · doi:10.1515/ijnes-2015-0028

Integrating a Career Planning and Development Program into the Baccalaureate Nursing Curriculum. Part II. Outcomes for New Graduate Nurses 12 Months Post-Graduation

2015· article· en· W2418653403 on OpenAlexaff
Janice Waddell, Karen Spalding, J. Escorihuela Navarro, Sonya Jancar, Genevieve Canizares

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsToronto Public HealthCARE CanadaToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraduation (instrument)CurriculumWorkforceNursingNurse educationPsychological resilienceIntervention (counseling)Medical educationCareer developmentProfessional developmentMedicinePsychologyPedagogyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New graduate nurses' (NGNs) transition into the nursing workforce is characterized as stressful and challenging. Consequently, a high percentage of them leave their first place of employment or the profession entirely within one year of graduation. Nursing literature describes this complicated shift from student to registered nurse, however, limited attention has focused on strategies that could be implemented during students' academic programs to prepare them for this difficult transition period. Therefore, a longitudinal intervention study was conducted to examine the influence of a career planning and development (CPD) program on the development of career resilience in baccalaureate nursing students and at 12 months post-graduation (NGN). The findings support including structured and progressive curriculum-based CPD opportunities in academic programs, not only for the positive outcomes that accrue to students, but also because of the benefits they extend to NGNs as they make the transition to their first professional nursing role.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Nursing Education ScholarshipSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207